"6 of the 8 patent suits filed today were filed by patent trolls," said this Twitter account last week, "according to RPX Corp. That's 75%." That's not so unusual, either. That's in the US, where one is supposed to believe that the problem of trolls is ebbing away, notably because trolls rely on software patents, which themselves have little or no legitimacy in courts (35 U.S.C. ۤ 101). Sometimes USPTO examiners reject these as well. If not them, then the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
"Seeing the lack of blog posts and even "tweets" from Team UPC, it's not hard to see that they too know it. UPC is dead."Here in Europe there's the lobby for UPC, led by companies whose biggest clients include patent trolls -- a growing problem in Europe, Germany in particular. Thankfully, a combination of factors including the German FCC (Constitutional Court) doom the UPC. "Same story as for the rules of procedure of the Unitary Patent Court," Benjamin Henrion wrote in relation to other legislation, "you cannot create 130 pages of rules of procedure without the green light of parliaments."
It's even more than that for the UPC (people who approve it never ever read it!) and we've seen several new barriers to the UPC since the complaint to the FCC was filed two years ago, thwarting an imminent (at the time) ratification. There are at least three new ones and three additional ones named in the complaint, making a total of about 7 barriers to the UPC. We're keeping track and keeping a count/tally. Seeing the lack of blog posts and even "tweets" from Team UPC, it's not hard to see that they too know it. UPC is dead. In a recent Financial Times piece they openly admitted that they merely try to manufacture the illusion of progress.
"To them, the embrace of patent maximalism is very much desirable. Notice that sites like IAM never write anything negative about Campinos; they only need to pretend to be objective, for example when media provides compelling evidence of misconduct."We're disappointed to see nobody in the European media covering this (let alone international media); when it's mentioned it's typically composed with or by law firms. In other words, it's marketing and lobbying rather than actual reporting. They're lying. The above-mentioned Financial Times piece is one recent example of it.
When Groklaw covered the SCO case it did what almost nobody else did (or was able to do); equipped with inside knowledge and contacts near the action, it was able to debunk deliberate misinformation -- the sort of thing the staff of the European Patent Office (EPO) nowadays deserves. Team UPC, or the litigation/trolls' lobby (sites like IAM), does not view Battistelli and Campinos as problematic (except for the image of the EPO, which is being stained). To them, the embrace of patent maximalism is very much desirable. Notice that sites like IAM never write anything negative about Campinos; they only need to pretend to be objective, for example when media provides compelling evidence of misconduct. Whereupon they try to burn sources (and work to undermine the messengers). They're almost literally in bed with the trolls and the most corrupt officials. Just before the weekend IAM once again fronted for American patent trolls after a key decision from the Federal Circuit.
We remind EPO workers (examiners in particular) that today's media -- and the state of journalism in general -- is corrupt. Publishers are tools of corporate occupation and they receive bribes (e.g. advertising or partnership money) to mislead the public. On the upside, it looks like several writers left IAM recently (only the core 3 remain). They've apparently changed hands as well (Globe Business Media Group, a front group for law firms). ⬆